I always like the ham sandwich example for the equivocation fallacy: Nothing is better than eternal happiness A ham sandwich is better than nothing Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness
For me, it boils down to this: Enforced, _involountary_ segregation is unjust. Involuntary is the key word because if one party _wants_ this seperation they (though under the same law) are not forced in the same way: their wish has been granted. The opposing party, on the other hand, is controlled. It's analogous to feeding my two kids the older brother's favourite meal every night. They are both constrained to eat the identical meal off the identical plate but this equality doesn't constitute justice but rather, consistent injustice. Who gets what they want and who is force-fed? Seperate but equal breaks down on this view because, _seperate itself_ is exactly what one party wants and what a second party is unjustly constrained to enact under threat. (Probably the temptation in law is not to abandon justice for injustice but to abandon the reality of justice for the appearance of justice.)
The idea of segregation first requires you accept that someone has the right to interfere with someone else's natural right to wander the Earth freely, interact with any creatures they happen across, and settle anywhere anyone else can settle.
@@havenbastion If a border is imaginary then it does not serve the purpose of being a border so yes. About the necessary part, countries already have passports, visas and immigrant/tourist policies so that they can take track of whether stopping someone from passing the border is necessary.
I believe that in the Brown’s argument “inferior” does not mean “be inferior” nor “be stamped inferior”, but rather “perceive being stamped inferior”. That’s why the second sentence that Jeffry considers as irrelevant is important here. So, the problem of the argument is not in equivocation but in unproven second statement. We don’t know if white people in a society dominated by black people would consider be labeled as inferior or not by a segregation law.
no, cuz white people would obviously be considered inferior in a society where they were the one to undergo slavery, segregation etc then there is no argument.
I'm not a english native speaker, but I notice that in the phrase "acquiesce in this assumption" it's evident that the racist is talking about a stamp or label. Moreover, as somebody else mentioned around here, a simple answer to this would be just as the racist himself implicitly said: when you assert that there's a superior race and another not superior, you're saying that in the inferior race, there're circumstances that damage its well-being. Thus, when you put the segregation act, you are amplifying this damage. This is my opinion, and I am grateful to you for your contribution.
Ignoring the context within the statement was said, it still valid as Modus Tollens. If segregation means that both parties are unequal, when either party imposes segregation the other is truly inferior. But since this is untrue and people are always equal, it does not follow that the segregation of peoples changes the inherent value of a person. I changed the wording of the argument slightly but it’s still the same. The justice probably believed that blacks were truly inferior but it doesn’t change the fact that when using the same definition of inferior(as being inferior rather than labeled as such) for all of its uses the argument is valid. At least that’s how it seems to me but I could be wrong.
Brown did not equivocate. His second sentence established his definition. The sentence that you conveniently threw out. He defined it as a false feeling of inferiority or as you put it a label. "solely because the colored race choses to put that constriction on it". Premise 2 is poorly worded because you did not include that sentence. It should be something more like 1. If segregation imposes inferiority then when black people enforced segregation white people would be inferior. 2. But when black people enforced segregation on white people they did "not acquiesce" to the label of inferior. 3. Therefore segregation does not impose inferiority. As you can see when including Brown's entire argument it is internally consistent and not equivocating. He is basically saying that any feelings of inferiority is a you problem and has nothing to do with the law itself. Before anyone starts making assumptions about my character for defending Brown his argument was still flawed in other ways. For one that definition sucks. The "colored race" didnt just chose to feel like segregation was discriminatory. It was in practice actually discriminatory. Also premise one is flawed because when black people impose segregation they do it to the detriment of themselves and other black people.
William Jenkins: I'm not calling you names for "defending" Justice Brown. I agree that Brown preliminarily divorced the language of the statute from both its meaning in real life [inferiority] and from it's implications [you are inferior, therefore you are in a separate car] , or as you called it, "inferiority is YOUR problem." In other words, he made his RULING FIRST [not expressly in the law], and then constructed a chicken wire fence of sorts around it [but if you see it as making you inferior, it's your problem'. Classic Racism. Right?
It does not matter whether the blacks think themselves as feeling inferior owing to the law. The question is do the whites do. Yes. What gurantee is that whites have not brought this legislation to separate themselves the blacks as they considered them as inferiors - almost untouchables. It is very clear that this law was created and defended by white supremacist racists to separate themselves from blacks whom they considered untouchables. Of course saying we give them equal treatment i.e. separate and equal nonsense, won't do. I can put a smile on my face and hug someone but inside I am full of hatred. I can then tell him to sit on a separate sofa in my house which is same in quality as that on which I sit but if I really love him and have no hatred towards him why don't I let him sit beside myself in the same sofa? Bcoz I consider him a dog. He may protest "why brother? Why do u not allow me to sit beside you if u do not hate me?". There of course can be genuine reasons. He may have some infectious disease like corona. Like we segregated covid suspects. Its perfectly just and moral. But of this nonsense law can we find anything such reason. Were the blacks infected by some peculiar disease which infected only blacks so they had to be segregated from the whites??? Or any other reasonable reason? Nope. It is a purposeless law except to propagate the false sense of racial superiority that white men thought they had.
Brown has to make that switch from a psychological consistent point of view. We can argue that people's identity is so engrained, cemented that unconsciously it is impossible to violate the perceived self. For those conscious of it, it can become a tool to use the reasoning from. There is also another underlying assumption, and that is, that you only can switch 1 to 1, meaning that blacks will exactly do the same, and invent the same as whites. That is a fallacy in itself. Being dominant, doesn't mean the other is inferior. There's a difference between domineering and being dominant. Being dominant also doesn't mean a person is self-sustaining and independent. It defies the notion of social animal. I must say, I have learned a lot from this video. Sometimes you have an intuitive feeling that something doesn't add up, but having the tools to do this qualitatively is very helpful. The whole argument seems like a utilitarian argument. From that we could infer that the argument is narcissistic in nature or even psychopathic. It reduces the others to mere instruments in an environment that dominantly favors one. I know this is about law, but I am very interested in carving out society and societies on a spectrum of character traits. Psychopathy is not a psychological ailment. What the difficulty is with all these things is, that the majority of people are emotional beings. So logic, extreme materialist and instrumentalist views violate the deep notion of social emotional feelings. Therefore you can't leave these things out. Ho general you started, each case is particular in nature with some abstract resemblances. All this said with no formal law education.
Kaplan - rare for him - is clearly wrong here. There is no equivocation and the word 'inferior' is not used surreptitiously in different senses. K's claim that they differ is just that - an assertion. A proper rebuttal of Plessy is: given the situation in which one racial group is already socially stigmatized, separate but equal arrangements will always, by their very nature, reinforce the existing negativities.
I just discovered this video and I’m glad I did! I do have a question though: won’t the last sentence, which talks about “whites will not acquiesce to this assumption”, imply that the inferiority Justice Brown is referring to in the second premise to be the label, as opposed to being actually inferior? You can’t “acquiesce” to a state of being and only to a label
I think he's saying that whites will not acquiesce in (agree to) the assumption that they would be inferior if a black legislature imposed racial segregation on them.
@@kennethconnally4356 Similar language was used earlier about blacks, but the teacher referred to it as simply a “throw away insult.” He was pretty obviously stating that the act only made blacks seem inferior because they themselves assumed that label.
Palatine, I think you can acquiesce to a state of being, through the label; for example women who believed/acquiesced to to the assumption/label that women could not be good leaders of men would by that lack of confidence not be good leaders of men, whereas women who resisted that assumption/label could be. Normalization and internalization of oppression are a real thing, and can make marginalized groups genuinely feel and believe and even act inferior. That said, I think Kaplan has partly missed the point on this one, in that segregation laws were a case of the state underscoring and reinforcing circumstances of historical, social and economic injustices. Under the labeling/being distinction, these laws weren't labeling black people inferior, they were reinforcing the fact that they WERE in a socially and economically inferior position. In the fictitious scenario that a black legislature enforced 'separate but equal' laws, the white population would be much less likely to internalize that as oppression against them because they were already in the socially-respected and wealthy positions. Black people would still be shut out; white people merely shut in, which is a huge difference. So the problem with Kaplan's modus tollens isn't equivocation; it's a valid, but unsound argument because premise 1 in garbage, the comparison between segregation against black people and 'against' white people simply doesn't hold.
@@mithrae4525 The Supreme Court isn’t judging whether outcomes will be equal, they arguing whether a particular act/policy is discriminatory. The fact that some people may respond to acts differently doesn’t mean the acts themselves are discriminatory. The problem with “separate but equal” has never been in the theoretical, it’s in the practical. It simply can’t be obtained in large scale across many facets.
@@mikemck4796 policies which predictably reinforce or increase racial disparities are (obviously) racial discrimination. That's even more obvious when as in the case of segregation they are explicitly racial policies: As I said, since black Americans had been (and are) historically, socially and economically discriminated against and disadvantaged, even if "practically" obtainable in terms of state-provided services "separate but equal" would still have the clear and unequivocal effect of locking black people out of the most desirable communities, markets and spheres of influence which white people already had access to. Something similar persists to this day, in that predominantly (>75%) white schools on average receive significantly more funding per student than predominantly non-white schools, to the tune of around $23 billion across America. That systematic provision of poorer-quality education to non-white children predictably puts them at a disadvantage throughout later education and the rest of their lives, compared to white children. In this case the policies involved don't transparently declare that they are racial policies - they're a consequence largely of district-based school funding models, meaning that wealthier districts have better schools - but in both intention and consequence they are obviously reinforcing and perpetuating historical disadvantage and discrimination. edbuild.org/content/23-billion
I think you misinterpreted the argument. I think it goes more like this. 1) Segregation implies a label of inferiority. 2) Labeling people as inferior doesn't make them inferior. 3) Therefore segregation doesn't make them inferior. The part you said had nothing to do with the argument is an attempt to show that any notion of superiority/inferiority is in the minds of the people and not a part of the law.
Not that it would necessarily change your point and more out of curiosity on your thoughts, but wouldn't there be three potential "inferiority" levels? 1. Labeled 2. Treated as 3. Actually Great content, recent follower!
there is but one definition and that is subjective, true inferiority isnt a real concept as true good and true evil arent either the argument is flawed because it relies on semantic ambiguity, nobody can know with certainty what the writer intended with inferior and inferiority, allowing the reader to fill in the blanks this is why the argument worked; its utilising the suggestive ability of the people back then, consequently this is why we in modern times assume that its racist that ambiguity is also what leads to the confusion that allows for the belief of multiple 'levels' of inferiority, as there are infinitely many ways of explaining inferiority what brown really did was to throw in an elaborate strawman to avoid tackling the true inequality of segregation
I think Brown muddied his own argument by using the term “stamped.” I believe what he was trying to argue was that: 1) If it were true that segregation causes the less politically powerful group to be treated as inferior, then we should find that when black people are in the dominant position and impose segregation on white people, white people would end up being treated as inferior. 2) When, in U.S. history, blacks have been in the politically dominant position and imposed these kinds of laws, we have found that white people did not, in fact, end up being treated as inferior. 3) Therefore, segregation, in itself, doesn’t cause people to be treated as inferior. When stated this way, there’s no equivocation. But in his supposition 2), Brown is presumably talking about black people being in dominant positions at a local level (e.g., in local legislatures during Reconstruction), still in the context of a more broadly white-dominated society. So, it’s not a clean switch of “white” and “black.” For the argument to work as intended, black people would've had to be the nationally (and, one might argue, historically) dominant group and have imposed segregation, and white people would've still had to end up not being treated as inferior under those circumstances. That didn't happen, at least not in the U.S. So, even if you remove the equivocation, the argument still fails.
Very interesting. I agree that equivocation may not be the right counter-argument. How about this: if black people were in a position of power and made laws of desegregation, would the white people (at the time, in that part of the country) still acquiesce? To say it more clearly, would white people accept the notion that they are equal? I think this might be a much more direct logical way to object Brown's argument.
For me the quoted passage reeks of a peculiar form of moral degradation: the urge to say 'you're just like me: you'd do the bad things I do if you had the chance'. Did, in fact, black dominated legislatures ever impose segregation? I somehow doubt it though the white population would probably have felt anger that there were black people writing laws on any subject whatever. It also says "The white populations just is superior and their amour propre is invulnerable to any insult. The coloured population's feelings are irrelevant." Both these dog whistles are there as well as the equivocal argument.
There were black towns where the mayors enforced a complete segregation by not allowing white people to move in. Black people were not 100% opposed to segregation at the time. The argument is still a what-aboutism. Just because some black people did it too does not make it right.
All you have to do is look at the southern African nations that were white run governments that became black run governments to see how that argument ends up. South Africa is going through it at this time. The government there is even calling for the outright genocide of the Boer (whites) in South Africa. Want to try to argue that?
The ironic thing is that Justice Brown, in making his equivocation argument, by saying that whites wouldn't be inferior if the rules were reversed at some point, he's actually admitting his belief in the superiority of the white race to the black race. Black people have never thought ourselves to be an interior people but inferior in social and legal structures. It has always been a label thrusted upon us. Brown all but says it himself. He believes blacks to be inferior, no matter their position or power.
I'm not a native speaker. I'm struggling with the "the coloured race chooses to put that constriction upon it". I thought "that constriction" referred to the "badge of inferiority", and "it" to "the act". So my initial interpretation was he said "black people equate segregation with their inferiority to white people". But Jeffrey condenses that into "something done by black people" which made it to me sound like "black people put the constriction [badge of inferiority] upon _themselves_ because they think they aren't superior to white people". Can anyone enlighten me on this? (I know the pronoun it shouldn't refer to a group of people today, but I have no idea how it was used more than 100 years ago and this isn't helping at all as well)
the judge is basically saying: “segregation doesn’t make you inferior. it is black people who chose to stamp themselves with the badge of inferiority.” you could then take this two ways. either the judge is saying that black people have victimized themselves, and thus begun referring to themselves as inferior upon their own accord. or he is saying that black people have become (perceived as) inferior to white people through their behaviours/attitudes/way of functioning in society. hope this helps! let me know if i can explain further. and big respect for commenting dude, i’m learning a second language and i know it can take guts sometimes :)
@@blake2067 Well yes I think I got the gist of the sentence, if I remember correctly I was confused about which word/phrase "it" refers to. Which is it, "the act" or "the coloured race"?
@@blake2067 right, but if so shouldn't it be "itself" like, "the coloured race put that constriction upon itself" instead of "the coloured race put that constriction upon it"?
The argument by Justice Brown here is very clever (not valid necessary, just clever) and Jeffrey Kaplan's analysis of it is likewise very clever. But both attempts, I think, are guilty of logic chopping. My own feeling is that "separate but equal" might work in theory but has always failed in practice. Nonetheless, I find this analysis interesting. As much as I am AGAINST the "separate but equal" doctrine, Brown's argument is clever, and a properly worded version of it might conceivably survive the fallacy of equivocation. I will give you a MUCH clearer example of equivocation. The Bush administration used "War on Terror" metaphorically, just as the "War on Poverty" was metaphorical. But then Bush and Cheney try to regard it as a LITERAL war... suspending habeous corpus, keeping prisoners indefinitely, and so on. (But not recognizing Geneva Conventions, so they weren't even self-consistent.) No one pointed out that civil rights had not been trampled on like this during the "War on Poverty".... landlords had not been arrested and then kept in prison until the "war" ( the existence of poverty) was over. But that's what Bush and Cheney did.
Now it is you that is equivocating. Fallacious arguments are not 'clever', since they are logically and demonstrably unsound. 'Clever' people use fallacious in the hope that they bamboozle people into thinking such arguments are sound or could be made sound under some other iteration, even though their argument is logically and demonstrably unsound.
I think Brown's argument does survive equivocation. The second sentence in his opinion established that he was using the definition of the label of inferiority. The sentence that Kaplan conveniently threw out. Brown did not in fact change definitions in premise 2. His point was that white people would refuse that label of inferiority, "not acquiesce". He was basically saying the feelings of inferiority are a you problem because they didnt happen to white people. Still not a great argument but not a one that uses equivocation.
First to comment.... I was a baby when the famous oj case occurred. However, as I got older I became obsessed with the case thanks to my parents. Sad that he got a way with murder.
I do not know why this is such a big problem to solve?? I will give my own understanding below :- 1) All laws have(and must have) a purpose. Environmental laws are to protect environment, Administrative laws are to regulate the working of the bureaucracy, Marriage laws are to regulate marital affairs - like this so and so forth. What purpose genuine does this law fulfill? Genuine purpose means really genuine purpose. Any purposeless laws cant be laws. When the Qing dynasty came to power in China it imposed a law that all men must have a manchu style haircut. What purpose does this serve in conducting the mundane affairs of the state?? Nothing. Of course one can come up with infinite "bogus" purposes. Like it was to make all people follow same culture or it was the will of the emperor etc etc. These do not count as purposes. What purpose does this segragration serves?? There are many cases of genuine segregration like segregrating covid suspects from general populace, segregration of male and female bathrooms/toilets/washroom etc. etc. Does the law serve any such purpose?? Nope. The only purpose it serves is to endorse white supremacist and racist behaviour. But we all can see this is not a genuine purpose but a perverted one. Therefore this law should have stood nullified owing to lack of any genuine purpose. 2) Even if we ignore the 1st point now the question comes whether the laws is discriminatory for segregrating blacks but "equally". To prove that it is not it has to be proved beyond doubt that (a) the law has a genuine purpose and (b) the whites wont any harbour any discriminatory thought of blacks being inferior when they remain segregrated. Concerning (a) it has been already shown in (1) that it serves no genuine purpose. Now it cannot be argued that it has been just for the sake of itself. No sane man will make such a law. It is like saying a (sane)boy enters a classroom and opens his pants just for the sake of itself. A sane boy will enter a class normally but wont do anybsuch act. He may even be mischevious - he may run into the classroom, but unless he is mad he wont open his pants in class. Similarly it cant be that law was just made for its sake.(withour any purpose). Basically whoever made the law couldnt have made it without a particular motive in my mind. The motive was to somehow continue by playing legal quibbles discriminatory acts and attitudes against the blacks. Concerning (b) it has to be shown that no white will use this occassion to continue the discriminatory attitude of blacks being inferior for the segregration could suggest and infact sugests that the segregration is there as blacks being inferior do not deserve to be in close contact of whites. We all know this cant be shown. Contrary from the then prevailing anti black sentiment it was clear how the law just allowed the white supremacist racists to secretly harbour discriminatory attitude towards blacks. 3) It may be argued given blacks were given equal treatment this can be termed as discrimination. Of course people still continuing their hatred against blacks could not be stopped by the govt. as it couldnt force people to change its opinions. And even without segregration the whites would continue to hate the blacks. But this argument cant be sustained as even though whites would continue hating the blacks non segregration wouldnt have allowed the whites to actually continue to hold such attitudes as they would be surrounded by blacks.
Well, damn, did not expect to ever do this. Friend, you got to attempt at putting the same meaning into both premises. and it works. To follow the bank example, you might catch the assumed equivocation fallacy, but then you might be told "you are getting the wrong idea. North Of River is the name of a financial institution. You have not entertained the idea that I might have been actually talking about a financial institution in both cases."(or instead of the name is location of a financial institution.) If you choose inferiority in terms of power, usually defined by financial power in a capitalist society, then this works. If black people were in charge and separated the social infrastructure based on race, white people would still have the better resources because they have the money. the conclusion from this statement is, the law is not allotting inferiority, the economic system is doing that. This is a fair argument and you can still see it supported to this day on the left. In this care the throwaway sentence basically means blacks are poor because we all know capitalism is fair and they have earned their poverty. If we go your way and choose inferiority in terms of a label. That still works, specially given the throwaway sentence which matches perfectly with the conditionals of the last sentence. The throwaway says as a label it's only relevant if the black community accepts it upon themselves. And if the black people were to call the whites inferior "we imagine the white race at least" would not believe that and live in accordance to it. You still hear this branch of argumentation on the right side of the politics. Because the truth is, the law was not racist in vacuumed, mathematically provable. The racist history of the people on whom the law was applied to made it racist. The issue is, no one was or is willing to correct the history. The issue is that said history is still fueling our economy, is the reason why we have an artificial scarcity which is weaponized against the poor to make them serve the rich.
In the real world, it will hardly ever happen that "black people are in charge" but "white people have the better resources". Logically you might make this work, but it's just completely implausible. In a capitalist society, the legal system will always be intertwined with the economy because the winners in economy will have more power to change the legal system. Besides, only you chose inferiority to be in terms of financial power. In the video, it is quite clear that "being inferior" refers to inherent ideological inferiority, basically racism. The second argument is that "white people would never consider themselves to be inferior, or be actually inferior", and it's kind of implying the opposite of this about blacks which is just blatant racism. Segregation is not necessarily discriminative, but it is racist, by definition. It's saying that there is such a significant difference between people with different skin colors that they need to be forcibly separated. It's naive to think that people in either of the groups will accept the other group as totally not inferior. There is always rivalry between separated tribes. When one tribe is more numerous and powerful than the other, they will be in a position to be discriminative against the weaker one, and so they will be.
@@mesterzombi6632 This from google matches my definition of racism, please let me know about yours, if it defers. "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." I hope that expresses my confusion when I read your sentiment that "Segregation is not necessarily discriminative, but it is racist, by definition." To consider two races (very) different is not necesarily racist either based on the same definition. Infect your speculation assumes us to be different tribes by nature, which although questionable is not necesarily racist. Similarly the law itself was not racist. What you could say is the intents of the legislator was racist, if we were to argue this was popular only since there was the uneven distribution of power(and probably that was the case.) This basically leads to the decision of the court, it's fine to do this law but you got to be equal with resource distribution. That being said, I have no idea how that condition was ever considered to be satisfied, it's not even satisfied today (well we don't have that condition today either.) Finally to address your point about choosing how to elaborate "being inferior," I addressed possibility in my third paragraph. Reading inferior as "inherent ideological inferiority" his argument turns into "If the roles were reversed white people would still consider themselves superiors, so the only asymmetry is in black people considering themselves inferior"(The whole "because the colored race chooses to put that constraint upon it" which we handwave in the video for some reason.) The argument is still valid. It's not sound because other than the law and the self image of black people there are other material factors that disadvantaged them. But if we are to never question the capitalist system, those factors are to be considered fair. That's why you still would hear this argument from a right-winger.
@@sinomirneja771 Well, yes, my idea about the definition of racism is more in line with the second line of what Google gives "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another". Although as I tried to argue, being racist by this definition leads to being racist by your definition, because of the tribal nature of humans. This tribalism is amplified by laws like segregation, but it's repressed by inclusive laws and education. This is what I mean when I say that segregation is racist. It's something that definitely promotes, and most probably even creates the racism you defined, in the minds of some people. It's precisely why the "If the roles were reversed white people would still consider themselves superiors, so the only asymmetry is in black people considering themselves inferior" argument fails. Because this implies that white people are fine with promoting tribalism and black people aren't, whatever the circumstances may be. This in turn means that white people always expect an advantage from this that black people can't expect. That is why it's discrimination. The only thing I assume here is that black people are just as good at determining what brings an advantage or disadvantage to them as white people. Denying this falls under my definition of racism.
@@mesterzombi6632I guess that describes why we would not understand each other. To me the "so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another" would be a necessity, but your definition does not consider that the case.
I think the 2 arguments you make (for each individual meaning of inferiority) cannot be gleaned from the text and context. In my interpretation of the Brown opinion, there is definitely equivocation like Jeffrey describes
If it doesn’t fit modus tokens then why are you applying it ? Any argument that requires this amount of explanation then the scaffold apply led to the case must be flawed itself - modi’s toll-in’s applies the the analysis - so it’s crap - segregation was the fallacy - the god givin right is for all mankind has ❤ for fellow man - and you are my brotha regardless of physical characteristics - end of the crap
"Banks" (financial institution) were most commonly found on waterways due to that being the primary means of travel (especially over long distances) for most people prior to extensive hardpack roadways (Ukraine is a prime example of muddy roads making travel over distance extremely difficult even to this day). So, if a "bank" (financial institution) was on the north side of a river, then it would be a good place to keep your money. The history of a word/term/phrase is important. But a lawyer only cares about that when it suits their argument. The low self-esteem of the blacks is not a law concept. It is a philosophical one. If they view themselves as inferior to a bullfrog, it does not mean it is so. The law does not treat the blacks as inferior to the bullfrog. Your fallacy is due to you oikophobia and white guilt.
1. "Blacks" v "black people." The former is reductive and therefore offensive. Rather say black. (It's worse cause you didn't say "whites" (but I still have a few minutes of watching to go). 2. You're a great teacher.
@@thando880 he has the right to enjoy himselfe when teaching philosophy as much as he likes to. calling this clinical 1. totally undermines and deflates the term "clinical" and 2. equating "clinical" with "insensitive" not only mashes up two unrelated terms but is also offensive to ppl with actual clinical problems
Are you black? I only ask cuz there’s a wild phenomena of non-blacks trying to dictate the feelings of black folks to other non-blacks without any input or even testimony from a black person and that shit is weird whenever it happens. If you are then ignore what i just wrote and i’ll just say that personally as a black person i don’t have any problem with folks sayin “blacks”, the only issue comes up when you might hear an insidious tone used when some folks try to refer to “the blacks” and Kaplan isn’t doing that here. Idk Kaplan (nor any person) well enough to do the dumb argument of “he’s not a racist”, but as someone who has at least been around him personally in a few settings he doesn’t even come off as a “The Blacks” typa guy so him sayin “blacks” shouldn’t be any problem whatsoever. It’s no dissimilar from talking about whites, hispanics, south asians, moroccans, Indians, etc
I always like the ham sandwich example for the equivocation fallacy:
Nothing is better than eternal happiness
A ham sandwich is better than nothing
Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness
Is it with "nothing" the equivocation?
@@alanwake5927 Yes. "Nothing" is meant in two different ways here.
@@alanwake5927 thanks for asking, becuse I didn't get it.... Equivocation a cool thing..
For me, it boils down to this:
Enforced, _involountary_ segregation is unjust. Involuntary is the key word because if one party _wants_ this seperation they (though under the same law) are not forced in the same way: their wish has been granted. The opposing party, on the other hand, is controlled.
It's analogous to feeding my two kids the older brother's favourite meal every night. They are both constrained to eat the identical meal off the identical plate but this equality doesn't constitute justice but rather, consistent injustice. Who gets what they want and who is force-fed?
Seperate but equal breaks down on this view because, _seperate itself_ is exactly what one party wants and what a second party is unjustly constrained to enact under threat.
(Probably the temptation in law is not to abandon justice for injustice but to abandon the reality of justice for the appearance of justice.)
“Equal but unjust” is something totally different from “separate but equal”.
The idea of segregation first requires you accept that someone has the right to interfere with someone else's natural right to wander the Earth freely, interact with any creatures they happen across, and settle anywhere anyone else can settle.
@@havenbastion No support for segregation but duh, this is what borders are for.
@@ismailtaskran9740 Borders can only be ethical when they're necessary management districts, not historical imaginary lines.
@@havenbastion If a border is imaginary then it does not serve the purpose of being a border so yes. About the necessary part, countries already have passports, visas and immigrant/tourist policies so that they can take track of whether stopping someone from passing the border is necessary.
I believe that in the Brown’s argument “inferior” does not mean “be inferior” nor “be stamped inferior”, but rather “perceive being stamped inferior”. That’s why the second sentence that Jeffry considers as irrelevant is important here.
So, the problem of the argument is not in equivocation but in unproven second statement. We don’t know if white people in a society dominated by black people would consider be labeled as inferior or not by a segregation law.
This!
no, cuz white people would obviously be considered inferior in a society where they were the one to undergo slavery, segregation etc
then there is no argument.
I'm not a english native speaker, but I notice that in the phrase "acquiesce in this assumption" it's evident that the racist is talking about a stamp or label.
Moreover, as somebody else mentioned around here, a simple answer to this would be just as the racist himself implicitly said: when you assert that there's a superior race and another not superior, you're saying that in the inferior race, there're circumstances that damage its well-being. Thus, when you put the segregation act, you are amplifying this damage.
This is my opinion, and I am grateful to you for your contribution.
isn't a 'and only if' missinbg there?
It’s ironic that he starts his paragraph claiming the plaintiff is in fallacy then proceeds to make a fallacious argument
The fallacy in your statement comes from blind belief in what Kaplan has said to be true. Kaplan himself has admitted to being mistaken on occasion. 😊
tell me you're racist without telling me you're racist@@chrishirst2717
more people need to see this vid
Ignoring the context within the statement was said, it still valid as Modus Tollens.
If segregation means that both parties are unequal, when either party imposes segregation the other is truly inferior. But since this is untrue and people are always equal, it does not follow that the segregation of peoples changes the inherent value of a person.
I changed the wording of the argument slightly but it’s still the same.
The justice probably believed that blacks were truly inferior but it doesn’t change the fact that when using the same definition of inferior(as being inferior rather than labeled as such) for all of its uses the argument is valid. At least that’s how it seems to me but I could be wrong.
Brown did not equivocate. His second sentence established his definition. The sentence that you conveniently threw out. He defined it as a false feeling of inferiority or as you put it a label. "solely because the colored race choses to put that constriction on it". Premise 2 is poorly worded because you did not include that sentence. It should be something more like
1. If segregation imposes inferiority then when black people enforced segregation white people would be inferior.
2. But when black people enforced segregation on white people they did "not acquiesce" to the label of inferior.
3. Therefore segregation does not impose inferiority.
As you can see when including Brown's entire argument it is internally consistent and not equivocating. He is basically saying that any feelings of inferiority is a you problem and has nothing to do with the law itself.
Before anyone starts making assumptions about my character for defending Brown his argument was still flawed in other ways. For one that definition sucks. The "colored race" didnt just chose to feel like segregation was discriminatory. It was in practice actually discriminatory. Also premise one is flawed because when black people impose segregation they do it to the detriment of themselves and other black people.
William Jenkins: I'm not calling you names for "defending" Justice Brown. I agree that Brown preliminarily divorced the language of the statute from both its meaning in real life [inferiority] and from it's implications [you are inferior, therefore you are in a separate car] , or as you called it, "inferiority is YOUR problem." In other words, he made his RULING FIRST [not expressly in the law], and then constructed a chicken wire fence of sorts around it [but if you see it as making you inferior, it's your problem'. Classic Racism. Right?
It does not matter whether the blacks think themselves as feeling inferior owing to the law. The question is do the whites do. Yes. What gurantee is that whites have not brought this legislation to separate themselves the blacks as they considered them as inferiors - almost untouchables. It is very clear that this law was created and defended by white supremacist racists to separate themselves from blacks whom they considered untouchables. Of course saying we give them equal treatment i.e. separate and equal nonsense, won't do. I can put a smile on my face and hug someone but inside I am full of hatred. I can then tell him to sit on a separate sofa in my house which is same in quality as that on which I sit but if I really love him and have no hatred towards him why don't I let him sit beside myself in the same sofa? Bcoz I consider him a dog. He may protest "why brother? Why do u not allow me to sit beside you if u do not hate me?". There of course can be genuine reasons. He may have some infectious disease like corona. Like we segregated covid suspects. Its perfectly just and moral. But of this nonsense law can we find anything such reason. Were the blacks infected by some peculiar disease which infected only blacks so they had to be segregated from the whites??? Or any other reasonable reason? Nope. It is a purposeless law except to propagate the false sense of racial superiority that white men thought they had.
Brown has to make that switch from a psychological consistent point of view. We can argue that people's identity is so engrained, cemented that unconsciously it is impossible to violate the perceived self. For those conscious of it, it can become a tool to use the reasoning from.
There is also another underlying assumption, and that is, that you only can switch 1 to 1, meaning that blacks will exactly do the same, and invent the same as whites. That is a fallacy in itself. Being dominant, doesn't mean the other is inferior. There's a difference between domineering and being dominant. Being dominant also doesn't mean a person is self-sustaining and independent. It defies the notion of social animal.
I must say, I have learned a lot from this video. Sometimes you have an intuitive feeling that something doesn't add up, but having the tools to do this qualitatively is very helpful.
The whole argument seems like a utilitarian argument. From that we could infer that the argument is narcissistic in nature or even psychopathic. It reduces the others to mere instruments in an environment that dominantly favors one.
I know this is about law, but I am very interested in carving out society and societies on a spectrum of character traits. Psychopathy is not a psychological ailment.
What the difficulty is with all these things is, that the majority of people are emotional beings. So logic, extreme materialist and instrumentalist views violate the deep notion of social emotional feelings. Therefore you can't leave these things out. Ho general you started, each case is particular in nature with some abstract resemblances.
All this said with no formal law education.
Kaplan - rare for him - is clearly wrong here. There is no equivocation and the word 'inferior' is not used surreptitiously in different senses. K's claim that they differ is just that - an assertion.
A proper rebuttal of Plessy is: given the situation in which one racial group is already socially stigmatized, separate but equal arrangements will always, by their very nature, reinforce the existing negativities.
I just discovered this video and I’m glad I did! I do have a question though: won’t the last sentence, which talks about “whites will not acquiesce to this assumption”, imply that the inferiority Justice Brown is referring to in the second premise to be the label, as opposed to being actually inferior? You can’t “acquiesce” to a state of being and only to a label
I think he's saying that whites will not acquiesce in (agree to) the assumption that they would be inferior if a black legislature imposed racial segregation on them.
@@kennethconnally4356 Similar language was used earlier about blacks, but the teacher referred to it as simply a “throw away insult.”
He was pretty obviously stating that the act only made blacks seem inferior because they themselves assumed that label.
Palatine, I think you can acquiesce to a state of being, through the label; for example women who believed/acquiesced to to the assumption/label that women could not be good leaders of men would by that lack of confidence not be good leaders of men, whereas women who resisted that assumption/label could be. Normalization and internalization of oppression are a real thing, and can make marginalized groups genuinely feel and believe and even act inferior.
That said, I think Kaplan has partly missed the point on this one, in that segregation laws were a case of the state underscoring and reinforcing circumstances of historical, social and economic injustices. Under the labeling/being distinction, these laws weren't labeling black people inferior, they were reinforcing the fact that they WERE in a socially and economically inferior position. In the fictitious scenario that a black legislature enforced 'separate but equal' laws, the white population would be much less likely to internalize that as oppression against them because they were already in the socially-respected and wealthy positions. Black people would still be shut out; white people merely shut in, which is a huge difference.
So the problem with Kaplan's modus tollens isn't equivocation; it's a valid, but unsound argument because premise 1 in garbage, the comparison between segregation against black people and 'against' white people simply doesn't hold.
@@mithrae4525 The Supreme Court isn’t judging whether outcomes will be equal, they arguing whether a particular act/policy is discriminatory. The fact that some people may respond to acts differently doesn’t mean the acts themselves are discriminatory.
The problem with “separate but equal” has never been in the theoretical, it’s in the practical. It simply can’t be obtained in large scale across many facets.
@@mikemck4796 policies which predictably reinforce or increase racial disparities are (obviously) racial discrimination.
That's even more obvious when as in the case of segregation they are explicitly racial policies: As I said, since black Americans had been (and are) historically, socially and economically discriminated against and disadvantaged, even if "practically" obtainable in terms of state-provided services "separate but equal" would still have the clear and unequivocal effect of locking black people out of the most desirable communities, markets and spheres of influence which white people already had access to.
Something similar persists to this day, in that predominantly (>75%) white schools on average receive significantly more funding per student than predominantly non-white schools, to the tune of around $23 billion across America. That systematic provision of poorer-quality education to non-white children predictably puts them at a disadvantage throughout later education and the rest of their lives, compared to white children. In this case the policies involved don't transparently declare that they are racial policies - they're a consequence largely of district-based school funding models, meaning that wealthier districts have better schools - but in both intention and consequence they are obviously reinforcing and perpetuating historical disadvantage and discrimination.
edbuild.org/content/23-billion
What the legal question that the court must answer to order tp dispose of the case?
I think you misinterpreted the argument. I think it goes more like this.
1) Segregation implies a label of inferiority.
2) Labeling people as inferior doesn't make them inferior.
3) Therefore segregation doesn't make them inferior.
The part you said had nothing to do with the argument is an attempt to show that any notion of superiority/inferiority is in the minds of the people and not a part of the law.
Please note this is in reference to the argument in the opinion and should not be construed in anyway as a defence of this law or segregation.
Not that it would necessarily change your point and more out of curiosity on your thoughts, but wouldn't there be three potential "inferiority" levels?
1. Labeled
2. Treated as
3. Actually
Great content, recent follower!
there is but one definition and that is subjective, true inferiority isnt a real concept as true good and true evil arent either
the argument is flawed because it relies on semantic ambiguity, nobody can know with certainty what the writer intended with inferior and inferiority, allowing the reader to fill in the blanks
this is why the argument worked; its utilising the suggestive ability of the people back then, consequently this is why we in modern times assume that its racist
that ambiguity is also what leads to the confusion that allows for the belief of multiple 'levels' of inferiority, as there are infinitely many ways of explaining inferiority
what brown really did was to throw in an elaborate strawman to avoid tackling the true inequality of segregation
is this inductive or deductive reasoning?
MT is deductive
I think Brown muddied his own argument by using the term “stamped.”
I believe what he was trying to argue was that:
1) If it were true that segregation causes the less politically powerful group to be treated as inferior, then we should find that when black people are in the dominant position and impose segregation on white people, white people would end up being treated as inferior. 2) When, in U.S. history, blacks have been in the politically dominant position and imposed these kinds of laws, we have found that white people did not, in fact, end up being treated as inferior. 3) Therefore, segregation, in itself, doesn’t cause people to be treated as inferior.
When stated this way, there’s no equivocation. But in his supposition 2), Brown is presumably talking about black people being in dominant positions at a local level (e.g., in local legislatures during Reconstruction), still in the context of a more broadly white-dominated society. So, it’s not a clean switch of “white” and “black.” For the argument to work as intended, black people would've had to be the nationally (and, one might argue, historically) dominant group and have imposed segregation, and white people would've still had to end up not being treated as inferior under those circumstances. That didn't happen, at least not in the U.S. So, even if you remove the equivocation, the argument still fails.
does religion use Equivocation?
Very interesting. I agree that equivocation may not be the right counter-argument. How about this: if black people were in a position of power and made laws of desegregation, would the white people (at the time, in that part of the country) still acquiesce? To say it more clearly, would white people accept the notion that they are equal? I think this might be a much more direct logical way to object Brown's argument.
Good show hommie
Was it legal positivism? Not natural laws. People make laws base on the social contexts and conventions not on higher moral grounds.
Ironically, "inferior", used SEAPARATELY twice in the argument, is not EQUALLY used.
For me the quoted passage reeks of a peculiar form of moral degradation: the urge to say 'you're just like me: you'd do the bad things I do if you had the chance'.
Did, in fact, black dominated legislatures ever impose segregation? I somehow doubt it though the white population would probably have felt anger that there were black people writing laws on any subject whatever.
It also says "The white populations just is superior and their amour propre is invulnerable to any insult. The coloured population's feelings are irrelevant."
Both these dog whistles are there as well as the equivocal argument.
What kind of garbage comment is this! You are racist against us white people, to make such object assumptions😡
There were black towns where the mayors enforced a complete segregation by not allowing white people to move in. Black people were not 100% opposed to segregation at the time. The argument is still a what-aboutism. Just because some black people did it too does not make it right.
All you have to do is look at the southern African nations that were white run governments that became black run governments to see how that argument ends up. South Africa is going through it at this time. The government there is even calling for the outright genocide of the Boer (whites) in South Africa. Want to try to argue that?
What if the separate cars were not only separated but the black cars were supremely luxurious compared to the white cars.
Top rate lecture .
The ironic thing is that Justice Brown, in making his equivocation argument, by saying that whites wouldn't be inferior if the rules were reversed at some point, he's actually admitting his belief in the superiority of the white race to the black race. Black people have never thought ourselves to be an interior people but inferior in social and legal structures. It has always been a label thrusted upon us. Brown all but says it himself. He believes blacks to be inferior, no matter their position or power.
In other words, Brown blamed the victim .
I'm not a native speaker. I'm struggling with the "the coloured race chooses to put that constriction upon it". I thought "that constriction" referred to the "badge of inferiority", and "it" to "the act". So my initial interpretation was he said "black people equate segregation with their inferiority to white people". But Jeffrey condenses that into "something done by black people" which made it to me sound like "black people put the constriction [badge of inferiority] upon _themselves_ because they think they aren't superior to white people". Can anyone enlighten me on this? (I know the pronoun it shouldn't refer to a group of people today, but I have no idea how it was used more than 100 years ago and this isn't helping at all as well)
the judge is basically saying: “segregation doesn’t make you inferior. it is black people who chose to stamp themselves with the badge of inferiority.”
you could then take this two ways. either the judge is saying that black people have victimized themselves, and thus begun referring to themselves as inferior upon their own accord. or he is saying that black people have become (perceived as) inferior to white people through their behaviours/attitudes/way of functioning in society.
hope this helps! let me know if i can explain further. and big respect for commenting dude, i’m learning a second language and i know it can take guts sometimes :)
@@blake2067 Well yes I think I got the gist of the sentence, if I remember correctly I was confused about which word/phrase "it" refers to. Which is it, "the act" or "the coloured race"?
@@islaymmm sorry lol i think i overcomplicated your question.
yes the “it” refers to the “coloured raced”
@@blake2067 right, but if so shouldn't it be "itself" like, "the coloured race put that constriction upon itself" instead of "the coloured race put that constriction upon it"?
@@islaymmm itself would be the correct term yes, or themselves maybe. the judge just said “it” because he was a stupid racist lol
Requiring people to do anything differently than yourselves is only possible if they're in a state of subjugation.
Bad reasoning merely accompanies bad actions
It's a complete misrepresentation of the written out excerpt.
The argument by Justice Brown here is very clever (not valid necessary, just clever) and Jeffrey Kaplan's analysis of it is likewise very clever. But both attempts, I think, are guilty of logic chopping. My own feeling is that "separate but equal" might work in theory but has always failed in practice. Nonetheless, I find this analysis interesting.
As much as I am AGAINST the "separate but equal" doctrine, Brown's argument is clever, and a properly worded version of it might conceivably survive the fallacy of equivocation.
I will give you a MUCH clearer example of equivocation. The Bush administration used "War on Terror" metaphorically, just as the "War on Poverty" was metaphorical. But then Bush and Cheney try to regard it as a LITERAL war... suspending habeous corpus, keeping prisoners indefinitely, and so on. (But not recognizing Geneva Conventions, so they weren't even self-consistent.) No one pointed out that civil rights had not been trampled on like this during the "War on Poverty".... landlords had not been arrested and then kept in prison until the "war" ( the existence of poverty) was over. But that's what Bush and Cheney did.
Now it is you that is equivocating. Fallacious arguments are not 'clever', since they are logically and demonstrably unsound. 'Clever' people use fallacious in the hope that they bamboozle people into thinking such arguments are sound or could be made sound under some other iteration, even though their argument is logically and demonstrably unsound.
I think Brown's argument does survive equivocation. The second sentence in his opinion established that he was using the definition of the label of inferiority. The sentence that Kaplan conveniently threw out. Brown did not in fact change definitions in premise 2. His point was that white people would refuse that label of inferiority, "not acquiesce". He was basically saying the feelings of inferiority are a you problem because they didnt happen to white people.
Still not a great argument but not a one that uses equivocation.
great lecture ty.
First to comment.... I was a baby when the famous oj case occurred. However, as I got older I became obsessed with the case thanks to my parents. Sad that he got a way with murder.
And that’s what you thought sadly comment worthy about the video? Sad.
@@souverain1er uh!
Sad that you eviscerated the grammar at the end of your comment.
i love this thank you amen😘😘😘😘😛😛😛😛😛
Thanks
I do not know why this is such a big problem to solve?? I will give my own understanding below :-
1) All laws have(and must have) a purpose. Environmental laws are to protect environment, Administrative laws are to regulate the working of the bureaucracy, Marriage laws are to regulate marital affairs - like this so and so forth. What purpose genuine does this law fulfill? Genuine purpose means really genuine purpose. Any purposeless laws cant be laws. When the Qing dynasty came to power in China it imposed a law that all men must have a manchu style haircut. What purpose does this serve in conducting the mundane affairs of the state?? Nothing. Of course one can come up with infinite "bogus" purposes. Like it was to make all people follow same culture or it was the will of the emperor etc etc. These do not count as purposes. What purpose does this segragration serves?? There are many cases of genuine segregration like segregrating covid suspects from general populace, segregration of male and female bathrooms/toilets/washroom etc. etc. Does the law serve any such purpose?? Nope. The only purpose it serves is to endorse white supremacist and racist behaviour. But we all can see this is not a genuine purpose but a perverted one. Therefore this law should have stood nullified owing to lack of any genuine purpose.
2) Even if we ignore the 1st point now the question comes whether the laws is discriminatory for segregrating blacks but "equally". To prove that it is not it has to be proved beyond doubt that (a) the law has a genuine purpose and (b) the whites wont any harbour any discriminatory thought of blacks being inferior when they remain segregrated.
Concerning (a) it has been already shown in (1) that it serves no genuine purpose. Now it cannot be argued that it has been just for the sake of itself. No sane man will make such a law. It is like saying a (sane)boy enters a classroom and opens his pants just for the sake of itself. A sane boy will enter a class normally but wont do anybsuch act. He may even be mischevious - he may run into the classroom, but unless he is mad he wont open his pants in class. Similarly it cant be that law was just made for its sake.(withour any purpose). Basically whoever made the law couldnt have made it without a particular motive in my mind. The motive was to somehow continue by playing legal quibbles discriminatory acts and attitudes against the blacks.
Concerning (b) it has to be shown that no white will use this occassion to continue the discriminatory attitude of blacks being inferior for the segregration could suggest and infact sugests that the segregration is there as blacks being inferior do not deserve to be in close contact of whites. We all know this cant be shown. Contrary from the then prevailing anti black sentiment it was clear how the law just allowed the white supremacist racists to secretly harbour discriminatory attitude towards blacks.
3) It may be argued given blacks were given equal treatment this can be termed as discrimination. Of course people still continuing their hatred against blacks could not be stopped by the govt. as it couldnt force people to change its opinions. And even without segregration the whites would continue to hate the blacks. But this argument cant be sustained as even though whites would continue hating the blacks non segregration wouldnt have allowed the whites to actually continue to hold such attitudes as they would be surrounded by blacks.
Well, damn, did not expect to ever do this.
Friend, you got to attempt at putting the same meaning into both premises. and it works.
To follow the bank example, you might catch the assumed equivocation fallacy, but then you might be told "you are getting the wrong idea. North Of River is the name of a financial institution. You have not entertained the idea that I might have been actually talking about a financial institution in both cases."(or instead of the name is location of a financial institution.)
If you choose inferiority in terms of power, usually defined by financial power in a capitalist society, then this works. If black people were in charge and separated the social infrastructure based on race, white people would still have the better resources because they have the money. the conclusion from this statement is, the law is not allotting inferiority, the economic system is doing that. This is a fair argument and you can still see it supported to this day on the left. In this care the throwaway sentence basically means blacks are poor because we all know capitalism is fair and they have earned their poverty.
If we go your way and choose inferiority in terms of a label. That still works, specially given the throwaway sentence which matches perfectly with the conditionals of the last sentence. The throwaway says as a label it's only relevant if the black community accepts it upon themselves. And if the black people were to call the whites inferior "we imagine the white race at least" would not believe that and live in accordance to it. You still hear this branch of argumentation on the right side of the politics.
Because the truth is, the law was not racist in vacuumed, mathematically provable. The racist history of the people on whom the law was applied to made it racist. The issue is, no one was or is willing to correct the history. The issue is that said history is still fueling our economy, is the reason why we have an artificial scarcity which is weaponized against the poor to make them serve the rich.
In the real world, it will hardly ever happen that "black people are in charge" but "white people have the better resources". Logically you might make this work, but it's just completely implausible. In a capitalist society, the legal system will always be intertwined with the economy because the winners in economy will have more power to change the legal system.
Besides, only you chose inferiority to be in terms of financial power. In the video, it is quite clear that "being inferior" refers to inherent ideological inferiority, basically racism.
The second argument is that "white people would never consider themselves to be inferior, or be actually inferior", and it's kind of implying the opposite of this about blacks which is just blatant racism.
Segregation is not necessarily discriminative, but it is racist, by definition. It's saying that there is such a significant difference between people with different skin colors that they need to be forcibly separated. It's naive to think that people in either of the groups will accept the other group as totally not inferior. There is always rivalry between separated tribes. When one tribe is more numerous and powerful than the other, they will be in a position to be discriminative against the weaker one, and so they will be.
@@mesterzombi6632
This from google matches my definition of racism, please let me know about yours, if it defers.
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
I hope that expresses my confusion when I read your sentiment that "Segregation is not necessarily discriminative, but it is racist, by definition."
To consider two races (very) different is not necesarily racist either based on the same definition. Infect your speculation assumes us to be different tribes by nature, which although questionable is not necesarily racist.
Similarly the law itself was not racist. What you could say is the intents of the legislator was racist, if we were to argue this was popular only since there was the uneven distribution of power(and probably that was the case.) This basically leads to the decision of the court, it's fine to do this law but you got to be equal with resource distribution. That being said, I have no idea how that condition was ever considered to be satisfied, it's not even satisfied today (well we don't have that condition today either.)
Finally to address your point about choosing how to elaborate "being inferior," I addressed possibility in my third paragraph. Reading inferior as "inherent ideological inferiority" his argument turns into "If the roles were reversed white people would still consider themselves superiors, so the only asymmetry is in black people considering themselves inferior"(The whole "because the colored race chooses to put that constraint upon it" which we handwave in the video for some reason.) The argument is still valid. It's not sound because other than the law and the self image of black people there are other material factors that disadvantaged them. But if we are to never question the capitalist system, those factors are to be considered fair. That's why you still would hear this argument from a right-winger.
@@sinomirneja771 Well, yes, my idea about the definition of racism is more in line with the second line of what Google gives "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another".
Although as I tried to argue, being racist by this definition leads to being racist by your definition, because of the tribal nature of humans. This tribalism is amplified by laws like segregation, but it's repressed by inclusive laws and education.
This is what I mean when I say that segregation is racist. It's something that definitely promotes, and most probably even creates the racism you defined, in the minds of some people.
It's precisely why the "If the roles were reversed white people would still consider themselves superiors, so the only asymmetry is in black people considering themselves inferior" argument fails. Because this implies that white people are fine with promoting tribalism and black people aren't, whatever the circumstances may be. This in turn means that white people always expect an advantage from this that black people can't expect. That is why it's discrimination.
The only thing I assume here is that black people are just as good at determining what brings an advantage or disadvantage to them as white people. Denying this falls under my definition of racism.
@@mesterzombi6632I guess that describes why we would not understand each other. To me the "so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another" would be a necessity, but your definition does not consider that the case.
I think the 2 arguments you make (for each individual meaning of inferiority) cannot be gleaned from the text and context. In my interpretation of the Brown opinion, there is definitely equivocation like Jeffrey describes
If it doesn’t fit modus tokens then why are you applying it ? Any argument that requires this amount of explanation then the scaffold apply led to the case must be flawed itself - modi’s toll-in’s applies the the analysis - so it’s crap - segregation was the fallacy - the god givin right is for all mankind has ❤ for fellow man - and you are my brotha regardless of physical characteristics - end of the crap
"Banks" (financial institution) were most commonly found on waterways due to that being the primary means of travel (especially over long distances) for most people prior to extensive hardpack roadways (Ukraine is a prime example of muddy roads making travel over distance extremely difficult even to this day). So, if a "bank" (financial institution) was on the north side of a river, then it would be a good place to keep your money. The history of a word/term/phrase is important. But a lawyer only cares about that when it suits their argument.
The low self-esteem of the blacks is not a law concept. It is a philosophical one. If they view themselves as inferior to a bullfrog, it does not mean it is so. The law does not treat the blacks as inferior to the bullfrog. Your fallacy is due to you oikophobia and white guilt.
1. "Blacks" v "black people." The former is reductive and therefore offensive. Rather say black. (It's worse cause you didn't say "whites" (but I still have a few minutes of watching to go).
2. You're a great teacher.
Also, try not to enjoy yourself too much when discussing/pointing out racism. Very clinical/insensitive and thus discomforting.
Okay, you said "whites" eventually. My argument stands those.
@@thando880 he has the right to enjoy himselfe when teaching philosophy as much as he likes to. calling this clinical 1. totally undermines and deflates the term "clinical" and 2. equating "clinical" with "insensitive" not only mashes up two unrelated terms but is also offensive to ppl with actual clinical problems
@@Caligulahahah I redact the word "clinical" then.
Are you black? I only ask cuz there’s a wild phenomena of non-blacks trying to dictate the feelings of black folks to other non-blacks without any input or even testimony from a black person and that shit is weird whenever it happens. If you are then ignore what i just wrote and i’ll just say that personally as a black person i don’t have any problem with folks sayin “blacks”, the only issue comes up when you might hear an insidious tone used when some folks try to refer to “the blacks” and Kaplan isn’t doing that here. Idk Kaplan (nor any person) well enough to do the dumb argument of “he’s not a racist”, but as someone who has at least been around him personally in a few settings he doesn’t even come off as a “The Blacks” typa guy so him sayin “blacks” shouldn’t be any problem whatsoever. It’s no dissimilar from talking about whites, hispanics, south asians, moroccans, Indians, etc
12+ minutes to get to the point? Shame!